OpenHPI - Parallel Programming Concepts - Week 1

Parallel Programming Concepts
OpenHPI Course
Week 1 : Terminology and fundamental concepts
Unit 1.1: Welcome !
Dr. Peter Tröger + Teaching Team

Course Content
■  Overview of theoretical and practical concepts
■  This course is for you if …
□  … you have skills in software development,
regardless of the programming language.
□  … you want to get an overview of parallelization concepts.
□  … you want to assess the feasibility of parallel hardware,
software and libraries for your parallelization problem.
■  This course is not for you if …
□  … you have no practical experience with software
development at all.
□  … you want a solution for a specific parallelization problem.
□  … you want to learn one specific parallel programming tool
or language in detail.
2
OpenHPI | Parallel Programming Concepts | Dr. Peter Tröger

3

Course Organization
■  Six lecture weeks, final exam in week 7
■  Several lecture units per week, per unit:
□  Video, slides, non-graded self-test
□  Sometimes mandatory and optional readings
□  Sometimes optional programming tasks
□  Week finished with a graded assignment
■  Six graded assignments sum up to max. 90 points
■  Graded final exam with max. 90 points
■  OpenHPI certificate awarded for getting ≥90 points in total
■  Forum can be used to discuss with other participants
■  FAQ is constantly updated
4

Course Organization
■  Week 1: Terminology and fundamental concepts
□  Moore’s law, power wall, memory wall, ILP wall,
speedup vs. scaleup, Amdahl’s law, Flynn’s taxonomy, …
■  Week 2: Shared memory parallelism – The basics
□  Concurrency, race condition, semaphore, mutex,
deadlock, monitor, …
■  Week 3: Shared memory parallelism – Programming
□  Threads, OpenMP, Intel TBB, Cilk, Scala, …
■  Week 4: Accelerators
□  Hardware today, CUDA, GPU Computing, OpenCL, …
■  Week 5: Distributed memory parallelism
□  CSP, Actor model, clusters, HPC, MPI, MapReduce, …
■  Week 6: Patterns, best practices and examples
5

Why Parallel?
6

Computer Markets
■  Embedded and Mobile Computing
□  Cars, smartphones, entertainment industry, medical devices, …
□  Power/performance and price as relevant issues
■  Desktop Computing
□  Price/performance ratio and extensibility as relevant issues
■  Server Computing
□  Business service provisioning as typical goal
□  Web servers, banking back-end, order processing, ...
□  Performance and availability as relevant issues
■  Most software benefits from having better performance
■  The computer hardware industry is constantly delivering
7

Running Applications
Application
Instructions
8

Three Ways Of Doing Anything Faster
[Pfister]
■  Work harder
(clock speed)
□  Hardware solution
□  No longer feasible
■  Work smarter
(optimization, caching)
□  No longer feasible
as only solution
■  Get help
(parallelization)
□  Hardware + Software
in cooperation
Application
Instructions
t
9

OpenHPI Course
Unit 1.2: Moore’s Law and the Power Wall

Processor Hardware
■  First computers had fixed programs (e.g. electronic calculator)
■  Von Neumann architecture (1945)
□  Instructions for central processing unit (CPU) in memory
□  Program is treated as data
□  Loading of code during runtime, self-modification
■  Multiple such processors: Symmetric multiprocessing (SMP)
CPU
Memory
Control Unit
Arithmetic Logic UnitInput
Output
Bus
11

Moore’s Law
■  “...the number of transistors that can be inexpensively placed on
an integrated circuit is increasing exponentially, doubling
approximately every two years. ...” (Gordon Moore, 1965)
□  CPUs contain different hardware parts, such as logic gates
□  Parts are built from transistors
□  Rule of exponential growth for the number
of transistors on one CPU chip
□  Meanwhile a self-fulfilling prophecy
□  Applied not only in processor industry,
but also in other areas
□  Sometimes misinterpreted as
performance indication
□  May still hold for the next 10-20 years
[Wikipedia]
12

Moore’s Law
[Wikimedia]
13

Moore’s Law vs. Software
■  Nathan P. Myhrvold, “The Next Fifty Years of Software”, 1997
□  “Software is a gas. It expands to fit the container it is in.”
◊  Constant increase in the amount of code
□  “Software grows until it becomes limited by Moore’s law.”
◊  Software often grows faster than hardware capabilities
□  “Software growth makes Moore’s Law possible.”
◊  Software and hardware market stimulate each other
□  “Software is only limited by human ambition & expectation.”
◊  People will always find ways for exploiting performance
■  Jevon’s paradox:
□  “Technological progress that increases the efficiency with
which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than
decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.”
14

Processor Performance Development
Transistors)#)
Clock)Speed)(MHz))
Power)(W))
Perf/Clock)(ILP))
“Work harder”
“Work smarter”
[HerbSutter,2009]
15

A Physics Problem
■  Power: Energy needed to run the processor
■  Static power (SP): Leakage in transistors while being inactive
■  Dynamic power (DP): Energy needed to switch a transistor
■  Moore’s law: N goes up exponentially, C goes down with size
■  Power dissipation demands cooling
□  Power density: Watt/cm2
■  Make dynamic power increase less dramatic:
□  Bringing down V reduces energy consumption, quadratically!
□  Don’t use N only for logic gates
■  Industry was able to increase the frequency (F) for decades
DP (approx.) = Number of Transistors (N) x Capacitance (C) x
Voltage2 (V2) x Frequency (F)
16

Processor Supply Voltage
1
10
100
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
PowerSupply(Volt)
Processor Supply VoltageProcessor Supply Voltage
[Moore,ISSCC]
17

Power Density
■  Growth of watts per square centimeter in microprocessors
■  Higher temperatures: Increased leakage, slower transistors
0 W
20 W
40 W
60 W
80 W
100 W
120 W
140 W
1992 1995 1997 2000 2002 2005
Hot Plate
Air Cooling Limit
18

Power Density
[Kevin Skadron, 2007]
“Cooking-Aware” Computing?
19

Second Problem: Leakage Increase
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Power(W)
Processor Power (Watts)Processor Power (Watts) -- Active & LeakageActive & Leakage
ActiveActive
LeakageLeakage
[www.ieeeghn.org]
■  Static leakage today: Up to 40% of CPU power consumption
20

The Power Wall
■  Air cooling capabilities are limited
□  Maximum temperature of 100-125 °C, hot spot problem
□  Static and dynamic power consumption must be limited
■  Power consumption increases with Moore‘s law,
but grow of hardware performance is expected
■  Further reducing voltage as compensation
□  We can’t do that endlessly, lower limit around 0.7V
□  Strange physical effects
■  Next-generation processors need to use even less power
□  Lower the frequencies, scale them dynamically
□  Use only parts of the processor at a time (‘dark silicon’)
□  Build energy-efficient special purpose hardware
■  No chance for faster processors through frequency increase
21

The Free Lunch Is Over
■  Clock speed curve
flattened in 2003
□  Heat, power,
leakage
■  Speeding up the serial
instruction execution
through clock speed
improvements no
longer works
■  Additional issues
□  ILP wall
□  Memory wall
[HerbSutter,2009]
22

OpenHPI Course
Unit 1.3: ILP Wall and Memory Wall

[Pfister]
■  Work harder
(clock speed)
!  Power wall problem
■  Work smarter
■  Get help
(parallelization)
□  Hardware + Software
Application
Instructions
24

Instruction Level Parallelism
■  Increasing the frequency is no longer an option
■  Provide smarter instruction processing for better performance
■  Instruction level parallelism (ILP)
□  Processor hardware optimizes low-level instruction execution
□  Instruction pipelining
◊  Overlapped execution of serial instructions
□  Superscalar execution
◊  Multiple units of one processor are used in parallel
□  Out-of-order execution
◊  Reorder instructions that do not have data dependencies
□  Speculative execution
◊  Control flow speculation and branch prediction
■  Today’s processors are packed with such ILP logic
25

The ILP Wall
■  No longer cost-effective to dedicate
new transistors to ILP mechanisms
■  Deeper pipelines make the
power problem worse
■  High ILP complexity effectively
reduces the processing
speed for a given frequency
(e.g. misprediction)
■  More aggressive ILP
technologies too risky due to
unknown real-world workloads
■  No ground-breaking new ideas
■  " “ILP wall”
■  Ok, let’s use the transistors for better caching
[Wikipedia]
26

Caching
■  von Neumann architecture
□  Instructions are stored in main memory
□  Program is treated as data
□  For each instruction execution, data must be fetched
■  When the frequency increases, main memory becomes a
performance bottleneck
■  Caching: Keep data copy in very fast, small memory on the CPU
CPU
Memory
Control Unit
Arithmetic Logic UnitInput
Output
Bus
Cache
27

Small
Memory Hardware Hierarchy
volatile
non-volatile
Registers
Processor
Caches
Random Access Memory
(RAM)
Flash / SSD Memory
Hard Drives
Tapes
Fast Expensive
Slow Large
28
Cheap

Memory Hardware Hierarchy
CPU core CPU core CPU core CPU core
L2 Cache L2 Cache
L3 Cache
L1 Cache L1 Cache L1 Cache L1 Cache
Bus
Bus Bus
L = Level
29

Caching for Performance
■  Well established optimization technique for performance
■  Caching relies on data locality
□  Some instructions are often used (e.g. loops)
□  Some data is often used (e.g. local variables)
□  Hardware keeps a copy of the data in the faster cache
□  On read attempts, data is taken directly from the cache
□  On write, data is cached and eventually written to memory
■  Similar to ILP, the potential is limited
□  Larger caches do not help automatically
□  At some point, all data locality in the
code is already exploited
□  Manual vs. compiler-driven optimization
[arstechnica.com]
30

Memory Wall
■  If caching is limited, we simply need faster memory
■  The problem: Shared memory is ‘shared’
□  Interconnect contention
□  Memory bandwidth
◊  Memory transfer speed is limited by the power wall
◊  Memory transfer size is limited by the power wall
■  Transfer technology cannot
keep up with GHz processors
■  Memory is too slow, effects
cannot be hidden through
caching completely
" “Memory wall”
[dell.com]
31

Problem Summary
■  Hardware perspective
□  Number of transistors N is still increasing
□  Building larger caches no longer helps (memory wall)
□  ILP is out of options (ILP wall)
□  Voltage / power / frequency is at the limit (power wall)
◊  Some help with dynamic scaling approaches
□  Remaining option: Use N for more cores per processor chip
■  Software perspective
□  Performance must come from the utilization of this increasing
core count per chip, since F is now fixed
□  Software must tackle the memory wall
32

[Pfister]
■  Work harder
(clock speed)
!  Power wall problem
!  Memory wall problem
■  Work smarter
!  ILP wall problem
■  Get help
(parallelization)
□  More cores per single CPU
□  Software needs to exploit
them in the right way
Problem
CPU
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
33

OpenHPI Course
Unit 1.4: Parallel Hardware Classification

Parallelism [Mattson et al.]
■  Task
□  Parallel program breaks a problem into tasks
■  Execution unit
□  Representation of a concurrently running task (e.g. thread)
□  Tasks are mapped to execution units
■  Processing element (PE)
□  Hardware element running one execution unit
□  Depends on scenario - logical processor vs. core vs. machine
□  Execution units run simultaneously on processing elements,
controlled by some scheduler
■  Synchronization - Mechanism to order activities of parallel tasks
■  Race condition - Program result depends on the scheduling order
35

Faster Processing through Parallelization
Program
Task
Task
Task
Task
Task
36

Flynn‘s Taxonomy (1966)
■  Classify parallel hardware architectures according to their
capabilities in the instruction and data processing dimension
Single Instruction,
Single Data (SISD)
Single Instruction,
Multiple Data (SIMD)
37
Processing Step
Instruction
Data Item
Output
Processing Step
Instruction
Data Items
Output
Multiple Instruction,
Single Data (MISD)
Processing Step
Instructions
Data Item
Output
Multiple Instruction,
Multiple Data (MIMD)
Processing Step
Instructions
Data Items
Output

Flynn‘s Taxonomy (1966)
■  Single Instruction, Single Data (SISD)
□  No parallelism in the execution
□  Old single processor architectures
■  Single Instruction, Multiple Data (SIMD)
□  Multiple data streams processed with one instruction stream
at the same time
□  Typical in graphics hardware and GPU accelerators
□  Special SIMD machines in high-performance computing
■  Multiple Instructions, Single Data (MISD)
□  Multiple instructions applied to the same data in parallel
□  Rarely used in practice, only for fault tolerance
■  Multiple Instructions, Multiple Data (MIMD)
□  Every modern processor, compute clusters
38

Parallelism on Different Levels
ProgramProgramProgram
ProcessProcessProcessProcessTask
PE
PE
PE
PE
Memory
Node
Network
PE
PE
PE
Memory
PE
PE
PE
Memory
PE
PE
PE
Memory
PE
PE
PE
Memory
39

■  A processor chip (socket)
□  Chip multi-processing (CMP)
◊  Multiple CPU’s per chip, called cores
◊  Multi-core / many-core
□  Simultaneous multi-threading (SMT)
◊  Interleaved execution of tasks on one core
◊  Example: Intel Hyperthreading
□  Chip multi-threading (CMT) = CMP + SMT
□  Instruction-level parallelism (ILP)
◊  Parallel processing of single instructions per core
■  Multiple processor chips in one machine (multi-processing)
□  Symmetric multi-processing (SMP)
■  Multiple processor chips in many machines (multi-computer)
40

[arstechnica.com]
ILP, SMT ILP, SMTILP, SMTILP, SMT
ILP, SMT ILP, SMT ILP, SMT ILP, SMT
CMPArchitecture
41

OpenHPI Course
Unit 1.5: Memory Architectures

ProgramProgramProgram
PE
PE
PE
PE
Memory
Node
Network
PE
PE
PE
Memory
PE
PE
PE
Memory
PE
PE
PE
Memory
PE
PE
PE
Memory
43

Shared Memory vs. Shared Nothing
■  Organization of parallel processing hardware as …
□  Shared memory system
◊  Tasks can directly access a common address space
◊  Implemented as memory hierarchy with different cache levels
□  Shared nothing system
◊  Tasks can only access local memory
◊  Global coordination of parallel execution by explicit
communication (e.g. messaging) between tasks
□  Hybrid architectures possible in practice
◊  Cluster of shared memory systems
◊  Accelerator hardware in a shared memory system
●  Dedicated local memory on the accelerator
●  Example: SIMD GPU hardware in SMP computer system
44

Shared Memory vs. Shared Nothing
■  Pfister: “shared memory” vs. “distributed memory”
■  Foster: “multiprocessor” vs. “multicomputer”
■  Tannenbaum: “shared memory” vs. “private memory”

Processing
Element
Task
Shared Memory

Processing
Element
Task

Processing
Element
Task

Processing
Element
Task
Message
Message
Message
Message
Data DataData Data
45

Shared Memory
■  Processing elements act independently
■  Use the same global address space
■  Changes are visible for all processing elements
■  Uniform memory access (UMA) system
□  Equal access time for all PE’s to all memory locations
□  Default approach for SMP systems of the past
■  Non-uniform memory access (NUMA) system
□  Delay on memory access according to the accessed region
□  Typically due to core / processor interconnect technology
■  Cache-coherent NUMA (CC-NUMA) system
◊  NUMA system that keeps all caches consistent
◊  Transparent hardware mechanisms
◊  Became standard approach with recent X86 chips
46

Socket
UMA Example
■  Two dual-core processor chips in an SMP system
■  Level 1 cache (fast, small), Level 2 cache (slower, larger)
■  Hardware manages cache coherency among all cores
Core Core
L1 Cache L1 Cache
L2 Cache
RAM
Chipset / Memory Controller
System Bus
Socket
Core Core
L1 Cache L1 Cache
L2 Cache
47
RAM RAM RAM

Socket
NUMA Example
■  Eight cores on 2 sockets in an SMP system
■  Memory controllers + chip interconnect realize a single memory
address space for the software
Core Core
L1 L1
L3 Cache
RAM
L2 L2
Core Core
L1
L2
L1
L2
Memory Controller
RAM
Chip
Interconnect
Socket
Core Core
L1 L1
L3 Cache
L2 L2
Core Core
L1
L2
L1
L2
Memory Controller
48

NUMA Example: 4-way Intel Nehalem SMP
Core
Core
Core
Core
Q
P
I
Core
Core
Core
Core
Q
P
I
Core
Core
Core
Core
Q
P
I
Core
Core
Core
Core
Q
P
I
L3Cache
L3Cache
L3Cache
MemoryController
MemoryController
MemoryController
L3Cache
MemoryController
I/O
I/O
I/O
I/O
Memory
Memory
Memory
Memory
49

Shared Nothing
■  Processing elements no longer share a common global memory
■  Easy scale-out by adding machines to the messaging network
■  Cluster computing: Combine machines with cheap interconnect
□  Compute cluster: Speedup for an application
◊  Batch processing, data parallelism
□  Load-balancing cluster: Better throughput for some service
□  High Availability (HA) cluster: Fault tolerance
■  Cluster to the extreme
□  High Performance Computing (HPC)
□  Massively Parallel Processing (MPP) hardware
□  TOP500 list of the fastest supercomputers
50

Clusters

Processing
Element
Task

Processing
Element
Task
Message
Message
Message
Message
Data Data
51

Shared Nothing Example
…
Socket
Core Core
L1 L1
L3 Cache
RAM
L2 L2
Memory
Controller
Network
Interface
Socket
Core Core
L1 L1
L3 Cache
RAM
L2 L2
Memory
Controller
Network
Interface
Socket
Core Core
L1 L1
L3 Cache
RAM
L2 L2
Memory
Controller
Network
Interface
Machine Machine Machine
52
Interconnection Network

Hybrid Example
…
Machine
Socket
Core Core
L1D L1D
L3 Cache
RAM
L2 L2
Memory
Controller
Network Interface
Chip Inter-
connect
Socket
Core Core
L1D L1D
L3 Cache
RAM
L2 L2
Memory
Controller
Machine
Socket
Core Core
L1D L1D
L3 Cache
RAM
L2 L2
Memory
Controller
Network Interface
Chip Inter-
connect
Socket
Core Core
L1D L1D
L3 Cache
RAM
L2 L2
Memory
Controller
53
Interconnection Network

Example: Cluster of Nehalem SMPs
Network
54

The Parallel Programming Problem
■  Execution environment has a particular type
(SIMD, MIMD, UMA, NUMA, …)
■  Execution environment maybe configurable (number of resources)
■  Parallel application must be mapped to available resources
Execution EnvironmentParallel Application Match ?
Configuration
Flexible
Type
55

OpenHPI Course
Unit 1.6: Speedup and Scaleup

Which One Is Faster ?
■  Usage scenario
□  Transporting a fridge
■  Usage environment
□  Driving through a forest
■  Perception of performance
□  Maximum speed
□  Average speed
□  Acceleration
■  We need some kind of
application-specific benchmark
57

Parallelism for …
■  Speedup – compute faster
■  Throughput – compute more in the same time
■  Scalability – compute faster / more with additional resources
■  …
Processing Element A1
Processing Element B1
ScalingUp
Scaling Out
MainMemory
MainMemory
58

Metrics
■  Parallelization metrics are application-dependent,
but follow a common set of concepts
□  Speedup: Adding more resources leads to less time for
solving the same problem.
□  Linear speedup:
n times more resources " n times speedup
□  Scaleup: Adding more resources solves a larger version of the
same problem in the same time.
□  Linear scaleup:
n times more resources " n times larger problem solvable
■  The most important goal depends on the application
□  Throughput demands scalability of the software
□  Response time demands speedup of the processing
59

Tasks: v=12
Processing elements: N= 3
Time needed: T3= 4
(Linear) Speedup: T1/T3=12/4=3
Speedup
■  Idealized assumptions
□  All tasks are equal sized
□  All code parts can run in parallel
Application
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
t t
Tasks: v=12
Processing elements: N=1
Time needed: T1=12
60

Speedup with Load Imbalance
■  Assumptions
□  Tasks have different size,
best-possible speedup depends
on optimized resource usage
□  All code parts can run in parallel
Application
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
t t
1
2
3
4
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Tasks: v=12
Processing elements: N= 3
Time needed: T3= 6
Speedup: T1/T3=16/6=2.67
Tasks: v=12
Processing elements: N=1
Time needed: T1=16
61

Speedup with Serial Parts
■  Each application has inherently non-parallelizable serial parts
□  Algorithmic limitations
□  Shared resources acting as bottleneck
□  Overhead for program start
□  Communication overhead in shared-nothing systems
23
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
tSER1
1
tPAR1
tSER2 tPAR2
tSER3
62

Amdahl’s Law
■  Gene Amdahl. “Validity of the single processor approach to achieving
large scale computing capabilities”. AFIPS 1967
□  Serial parts TSER = tSER1 + tSER2 + tSER3 + …
□  Parallelizable parts TPAR = tPAR1 + tPAR2 + tPAR3 + …
□  Execution time with one processing element:
T1 = TSER+TPAR
□  Execution time with N parallel processing elements:
TN >= TSER + TPAR / N
◊  Equal only on perfect parallelization,
e.g. no load imbalance
□  Amdahl’s Law for maximum speedup with N processing elements
S =
T1
TN
63
S =
TSER + TP AR
TSER + TP AR/N

Amdahl’s Law
64

Amdahl’s Law
■  Speedup through parallelism is hard to achieve
■  For unlimited resources, speedup is bound by the serial parts:
□  Assume T1=1
■  Parallelization problem relates to all system layers
□  Hardware offers some degree of parallel execution
□  Speedup gained is bound by serial parts:
◊  Limitations of hardware components
◊  Necessary serial activities in the operating system,
virtual runtime system, middleware and the application
◊  Overhead for the parallelization itself
65
SN!1 =
T1
TN!1
SN!1 =
1
TSER

Amdahl’s Law
■  “Everyone knows Amdahl’s law, but quickly forgets it.”
[Thomas Puzak, IBM]
■  90% parallelizable code leads to not more than 10x speedup
□  Regardless of the number of processing elements
■  Parallelism is only useful …
□  … for small number of processing elements
□  … for highly parallelizable code
■  What’s the sense in big parallel / distributed hardware setups?
■  Relevant assumptions
□  Put the same problem on different hardware
□  Assumption of fixed problem size
□  Only consideration of execution time for one problem
66

Gustafson-Barsis’ Law (1988)
■  Gustafson and Barsis: People are typically not interested in the
shortest execution time
□  Rather solve a bigger problem in reasonable time
■  Problem size could then scale with the number of processors
□  Typical in simulation and farmer / worker problems
□  Leads to larger parallel fraction with increasing N
□  Serial part is usually fixed or grows slower
■  Maximum scaled speedup by N processors:
■  Linear speedup now becomes possible
■  Software needs to ensure that serial parts remain constant
■  Other models exist (e.g. Work-Span model, Karp-Flatt metric)
67
S =
TSER + N · TP AR
TSER + TP AR

Summary: Week 1
■  Moore’s Law and the Power Wall
□  Processing element speed no longer increases
■  ILP Wall and Memory Wall
□  Memory access is not fast enough for modern hardware
■  Parallel Hardware Classification
□  From ILP to SMP, SIMD vs. MIMD
■  Memory Architectures
□  UMA vs. NUMA
■  Speedup and Scaleup
□  Amdahl’s Law and Gustavson’s Law
Since we need parallelism for speedup,
how can we express it in software?
68

OpenHPI - Parallel Programming Concepts - Week 1

More Related Content

Similar to OpenHPI - Parallel Programming Concepts - Week 1

More from Peter Tröger

Recently uploaded

OpenHPI - Parallel Programming Concepts - Week 1